The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution under the Drugs Act must be instituted by authorized individuals as per Section 32 of the Act, and the special provisions of the Drugs Act prevail over the general provisions of the CrPC.

Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

Petitioner has approached this Court by means of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC), for quashing of FIR No. 22/2016, dated 13.03.2016, under Section 27 (c) read with Section 18(a)(i),17-B, 36AC of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short 'Drugs Act') and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’), registered at Police Station Kala Amb, District Sirmour, (HP), against him and his wife Smt. Meenakshi Jain, mainly on the ground that only an Inspector or duly authorized gazetted officer of the Central Government or the State Government, or a person or a recognized consumer association, as provided in Section 32 of the Drugs Act, is competent to institute a prosecution for the offences committed under the Drugs Act and, as in the present case, the FIR has been registered and investigation is being carried out by the police officers, who are not duly authorized to institute the prosecution under the Drugs Act, FIR as well as consequential proceedings/investigation being carried out by the police, is liable to be quashed and set aside.

2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that wife of the petitioner was licencee under the Drugs Act for manufacturing drugs and the petitioner was holder of power of attorney on her behalf, which had been revoked later on. It is also submitted that in a case investigated by a police officer, no other person except police officer would be competent and entitle to institute the prosecution and, therefore, the present investigation being carried out in pursuance to FIR No. 22/2016, despite the same being registered at the instance of the Assistant Drugs Controller, shall result into institution of prosecution in violation of the provisions of Section 32 of the Act and shall be bound to fail.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment of Patna High Court passed in Hindustan Lever Ltd. Versus State of Bihar, reported in 1997 (1) BLJ 889, wherein FIR and investigation by police was quashed in similar facts and circumstances. It is apt to reproduce the relevant portion of para-3 of the aforesaid judgment herein:-

“3…………………The second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the police has no jurisdiction to investigate into the offences committed under the Act. In view of Section 32 of the Act it appears to have force. Section 32 of the Act provides that no prosecution shall be instituted for any offence under the Act except by a Drug Inspector or by the person aggrieved or by a recognized consumer association whether such person is a member of that association or not. It is evident that prosecution can be instituted by Drug Inspector or by any person aggrieved by filing complaint before a competent court. The police is not empowered to register any First Information Report and investigate the case so as to submit charge-sheet under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has contended that sub-section (3) of Section 22 provides for punishment for three years as such the police shall be competent to investigate the case on the report of the Drug Inspector. It is difficult to accept this contention in view of the provisions contained in Section 32 of the Act. In my opinion, the prosecution can be instituted by filing complaint by the Drug Inspector and the police has no jurisdiction to register a First Information Report and investigate into the offence under the Act. The investigation by police in this case, therefore, is without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed. In view of the above discussions, the First Information Report and the investigation by the police on the basis of F.I.R. impugned in the present writ application in so far as it relates to the present petitioner are quashed. Petition allowed.”

4. Reliance has been put on another judgment of the Patna High Court passed in a case titled a